There's that reality with its liberal bias again. Jeepers, can't you make it stop?

There is a larger point here, which the Democrats should be trumpeting to the skies. Bush, for all his crap about "Democracy in the Middle East" hates democracy.

The whole point of democracy is to allow the people to decide, but how are they supposed to decide if they don't get accurate information? You'd think that the press, for all their other incompetence regarding the Bush presidency, would at least understand this basic point. Meanwhile, Bush clearly thinks the people will make the "wrong" choice regarding Iraq, hence better not to let them know the truth.

And there's yet another point. Does anyone think Bush -- or more accurately, the Bush message machine -- cares at all about what "the troops" think about what they're saying?

The message, even if it is described as affecting "the troops," is not aimed at anyone but the domestic public, nor do they care about its reception anywhere else.

It's slightly frustrating that this isn't obvious...

Iraq is so yesterday's news. On to Iran. We'll get it right this time (if not, what's the next place with oil?... hmmmm ... Oh Huuuugo... time to see if the CIA has got its gameface back; funding a coup is easier and cheaper than funding a war).

What did you really expect from the Cheerleader in Chief?

So the Eagles are down a few touchdowns to the Sadr City Jihadis. Is he gonna set down his bullhorn and cry into his pom-poms?

Hell no. He's gonna give 'em all the cheer he's got.

It's disappointing to hear now, two years after the fact, that the president was knowingly bull----ing us the whole time.

And just where was this reporting two years ago? If he was in Iraq in 2006 and knew the ground truth, then he knew THEN that what Bush and the administration was saying was bullshit.

It's disappointing to hear now, two years after the fact, that reporters in Iraq knew what the administration said did not match what they saw...and knowingly did not report on the bullshit the whole time.

I'm not very impressed with someone who finds out that Bush is a Bullshitter in the year 2006. Excuse me, 2008, referencing some 2006 bullshit.

I would not be impressed with anyone who newly discovered that Bush was bulshitting in 2004.

But the problem is not Bush anymore. We will have McCain's bullshit for the next four years.

THINGS ARE GOING EXCEEDINGLY WELL ON THE EASTERN FRONT.

Ok, quaint notions about the President telling the truth to the American public aside, there is a bigger follow-up point to be made from that interview:

If Bush admits that he was overstating how positive the Iraq situation was in 2006, and further if he maintains that it is actually a good thing that the President would overstate the positives of the situation in order to keep up morale, then why should be trust him in 2008 when he is also saying that Iraq is going well? If, hypothetically, Iraq was actually not going well, wouldn't he by his own admittance still only tell us that things were going great?

> And just where was this reporting two
> years ago? If he was in Iraq in 2006 and
> knew the ground truth, then he knew THEN
> that what Bush and the administration was
> saying was bullshit.

Carter is a lawyer who serves in the Reserve JAG Office. He was called to active duty 2 years ago and spent a year in Iraq. Active duty officers are limited in what they can say/write.

Cranky

uuuuummmmmmmmmmm.....

The bastard STOLE 2 presidential elections and the criminal cabal behind this administration enabled or created 9/11.

The entire war is based on lies.

You want to ask, "how can you trust them at all?"

That is really a stupid comment.

"I claim we got a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is as humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, go back and re-take it."
--Stilwell's statement to the press after the retreat from Burma.

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
--Eisenhower's prepared statement to the press in case the Normandy landings failed.

Don't think there's any hope either of these losers would make it past captain in George Bush's Army.

"You can't handle the truth!"

nice article.

We deserve to be told the truth by our political leaders? Such a quaint notion.

But with today,s press, not withstanding the honorable Matha Raddazt, if Bush and GOP could NOT lie, what else would they do? Bush lies about the war, the state of the ecomony, wiretapping and torture. It's all lies, and I doubt Bush would understand the truth or need for it if it bite him in th *ss. AND it's all GOP is, it's all the GOP EVER does anymore.

We deserve to be told the truth by our political leaders?

Isn't that the problem? That you keep thinking of them as your leaders? Kevin, this is a democracy, they're our representatives, not our leaders. We, the people, are the leaders.

Bullshitting us, yes. For the moral of the troops, no.

He lied because he thought it was his best political option for the midterms. Lie and hope no one notices.

Is anyone going to ask why he lied in the run up to the Iraq war?

Once a cheerleader, always a cheerleader.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001444/images/2004/03/21/bush%20cheerleader.jpg

Borrowing from Nixon, it's only a lie if the POTUS says it is.

No, we don't deserve to be told the truth, because we fail, as a society to demand it and to impose consequences when we don't get it.

We don't deserve to be told the truth because we, as a society, reward lies.

The real problem is that we don't want to be told the truth. We only want to hear flagwavingly good news, even if it is obvious propaganda. Messengers of reality are shot or ostracized. We get the leadership we deserve.

Until we get enough of the people asking the right sorts of questions, and using critical thinking, we will be stuck with similar results.

This certainly casts a different light on such GOP talking points as, "Democrats take a condescending attitude towards ordinary Americans," and "Democrats don't trust Americans to make the right choices for themselves and their families."

In the last week or so, he's casually acknowledged that he signed off on torturing people and now, equally without affect, admits to lying about battlefield conditions. And what's the reaction around the country? A shrug. Apparently, most of us don't feel we deserve to be told the truth.

Remember that was 2006 -- an election was coming up in November and in 2004, W (a true leader not prone to changing his position just because of the shouts of the mob) was relected over Captain Flip-flop. Trouble was the voters didn't know who was the "mob".

>"look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?

Ironic. Even the above is a lie... he's lying about why he was lying.

Truth: I don't want to admit that I made a horrific mistake.

CK Dexter Haven: We don't deserve to be told the truth because we, as a society, reward lies.

It's still a bit early, but I vote for declaring this the best comment of the day.

BUSH: Well, yes. I think we — and I wanted — that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as — look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?

Rather than gifted leaders, Bush and his kind are more like the little kid who tried to lie his way out of having broken the cookie jar, who is older now but has never really grown up, and believes he can still try the same stunt all the time in the adult-world.

BUSH: Well, yes. I think we — and I wanted — that's as much trying to bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well as — look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?

Well, it's a good thing Winston Churchill never had the benefit of George DWI Bush's advice, or he wouldn't have given this downer of a speech:

"I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering." -- WRC, 1940.

We deserve to be told the truth by our political leaders?

I used to think this was true, but after ending up with Bush twice in the White House, an ineffective Congress controlled by either party, a worthless press corps and media, and a real prospect of a McCain presidency, I'm not so sure that collectively we're not getting what we deserve.

Hell, kevin, you should have dropped in the last sentence Bush spoke to really heighten the irony:

"I'm the commander in chief of the military as well, obviously, as, you know, somebody who speaks to the country. And if you look at my remarks, they were balanced. They weren't Pollyannaish."

"He lied because he thought it was his best political option for the midterms. Lie and hope no one notices."

Well, that wasn't a lie so much as bullshit. A lie respects the truth. He doesn't care what the truth is, he only cares what sounds good. He was bullshitting then, and he's bullshitting now when he says it was for the troops. He is always bullshitting.

I've seen this distinction in comments here a couple of times between "lies" and "bullshit," but I myself have never heard of it. In NJ, where I'm from (and the rest of the country, as far as I've ever heard) lies and bullshit are exactly the same thing. Is this some distniction only a particular group of people makes? Like so they can get away with confusing people about whether they were lying or not?

Thus it has alway been between social dominators and authoritarians - con men and the gullible.

Once you've got the gullible believing the con whole-heartedly then who wants to tell them they've been conned?

Seriously. Once someone is convinced that their life has a noble purpose and THIS IS IT who would dare to tell them it was a con?

I doubt Bush considered this before invading Iraq. I doubt he even cares.

So?

I should point out that while I speak of authoritarians we all have a degree of authoritarianism. We all like to be told what we want to hear to some degree. The problem is that authoritarians like to be told what they want to hear and they also have no BS detector. That is why I keep using the word gullible. They fall for cons and they don't learn from the experience. This time they fell for neocons.

Swan: this distinction ... between "lies" and "bullshit

I thought Doctor Jay made the distinction pretty clear in the comment directly above yours.

...look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?

I wonder if it ever occurred to Bush that if you find yourself in this quandry, it's perhaps a sign that you shouldn't have put the troops in this situation to begin with.

Thersites, you must have just glanced over my comment, because it's pretty clear that I wassn't asking him what he claimed the distinction was, but rather I was stating that there's no such distinction outside of his own opinion.

IMPEACH 'EM! Give Nan a call---1-202-225-0100

Anyway, if people claim that there are two types of lying, lies and bullshitting, then when someone says "You were BSing me!" they can say, "No, I wasn't," thereby placate the person, and later when the person discovers evidence of the lie and they're challenged on their bullshit again, the liar can say, "Hey, I said I didn't bullshit you. Lying and bullshittting are two different things! That's what I thought you were talking about- bullshitting. A lie can be for a good reason- I had a reason to do it- blah blah blah"

Sounds to me like the normal version, where a bullshit and a lie are the same thing, is the better way to go that Washington Monthly commenters' brand-new version.

"Hey I didn't lie, because I said I didn't steal something from you, I didn't say I didn't take something from you. You can take something for a good reason, and I had a good reason blah blah blah"

It IS a quaint notion, Kevin; we've been bullshitted in every war since December 7, 1941. I remember them all, and I remember the bullshit. It never stops.

Thersites, you must have just glanced over my comment,

More likely, though, you're just trying to confuse things.

is the better way to go that Washington Monthly commenters' brand-new version.

Should be 'than' not 'that'.

Pretending you had to lie to protect the soldiers from the truth is what I would call condescending. They are fighting the battle and they know exactly what conditions there are like. To imply otherwise is to paint them as fools. The truth of course is that the lie was meant for the american public and like so much opther bullshit is falsely portrayed as "supporting the troops". Can the media talk about this non-stop for a week instead of Obama's silly comment about bitterness?

Sounds to me like the normal version, where a bullshit and a lie are the same thing, is the better way to go that Washington Monthly commenters' brand-new version.

It's not a brand-new version. In fact, the difference was explicated in Princeton professor Harry G. Frankfurt's instant classic "On Bullshit" a few years ago. Here from a review:

More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?

So says the President to the troops currently serving in the quagmire called Iraq, about not affecting morale of previous troops serving there.

He doesn't care about troop morale. They won't be asked to vote for him.

BTW, these are more than "a bunch of kids" putting their lives on the line, and losing them.

We deserve to be told the truth by our political leaders? Such a quaint notion.

You mean if they're Republicans, right?

...look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, "It's not worth it," or, "You're losing." I mean, what does that do for morale?

Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt their self-esteem.

Wait, isn't that a sentiment that Republicans claim comes from (sorry for swearing) liberals?

Now I'm confused. Is building self-esteem through BS a good thing or a bad thing?

My friends in the military would mainly side with the president on this one. Basically, they'd say that they have an (over)developed sense of duty, and that to serve is to not second guess your leaders. They are aware that their lives may be forfeit over incompetence or worse, but that's the risk that they willingly accept.

Just a little alternative viewpoint...

Of course the real lie is that Bush's BS had anything to do with troop morale and nothiing to do with the 2006 mid-term elections

"We go to war with the commander in chief we have, not the commander in chief we would like to have."

@ Cranky --

One correction. Carter's not a reserve JAG. Not a JAG at all. He served in Iraq as a combat adviser to the Iraqi police. It so happens that he's a lawyer. But I don't hold that against him. Cheers.